accurate Oberth-Class schematics

[Reverend]

I've seen this Oberth/tug concept before and it just doesn't make any sense to me and to be honest, rather smacks of kit bashing.
I've roughed out the general layout of the primary hull decks and there's plenty of room to cram in 80 people. If you need a larger crew than that, or greater cargo capacity, then the Oberth is simply the wrong ship for the task; send a Miranda or Antares-Class Surveyor instead!
A starship is a piece of equipment and like anything we have to day it has a certain limitations to it's functionality. It dose what it does and maybe a little more when push comes to shove but NOTHING is designed to do EVERYTHING (except perhaps TMA-1 .)
Sure, it's modular, but only to a point. I thought keeping the modules internal makes more sense than slapping on all kinds of pods, antennae and whatnot and it also keeps the design in line with what we've seen onscreen. Hell, even the Pegasus; an advanced prototype was externally indistinguishable from any other Oberth-Class vessel. So I think internalised modularity is the best way to go. No need to invent functions that need not apply. I'm sure starfleet has plenty of other tugs, larger surveyors, scouts and science vessels to suit the various roles of a Federation Starship.

 

[Bill Morris]

Here's an Oberth scaled to 120 meters overall length against a Nebula at 444 (based on its having the same saucer width as the Galaxy classs). The deck heights are the same in this comparison, and notice that deck 10 of the Nebula is exactly where it should be. Compare this against the closing scene of GEN, and it's not so bad. I guess I should make the shuttles in the Nebula a little smaller, since the type 8 is only 2.8 meters tall.

So doesn't this actually work at 120 meters? Am I overlooking something?

 

[Timo]

I think it works just fine like that - Starfleet would probably love to miniaturize things as much as they can. If the idea is to have a small starship, then go as small as possible! And on the modularity issue, I'd argue that the same basic hull and engines could indeed be used on wildly diverse applications - it's not as if a specific individual vessel would have that modularity, or the ability to chameleon from one role to another.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Bill Morris]

What I forgot to mention is that the shuttlebay would also have a higher ceiling than other rooms on the same level, since it doesn't have a false ceiling with conduit space above. So a type 8 shuttle 2.8 meters tall is okay there.

 

[Timo]

One would expect that the bay needed extensive and expensive guidance systems to allow the big shuttle to safely clear the small doorway, though. Perhaps that would go contrary to the "minimum starship" design credo?

I mean, it's not as if regular-sized shuttles would be a design requirement for the Oberths, as no movie or episode makes mention of such capabilities.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[B.J.]

Just an oddball thought, but perhaps instead of guidance systems, the Oberth has an extendable landing platform? That way, the shuttle pilot wouldn't have to worry about squeezing through the doorway on his own, and would instead land on the platform and be carried through the door.

 

[Timo]

That might be a nice optional extra, for those configurations that have the shuttles aboard...

But would it be markedly simpler and cheaper than a precision tractor beam system? The nonretractable platforms of Daran class ships from Ships of the Star Fleet would - but the retractability might be too much to ask.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Bill Morris]

A rollout platform sounds good.

Also, that cargo area above the shuttlebay can be a mezzanine. We've seen a cargo mezzanine on the Enterprise D and a mezzanine level of the engine room of the Defiant. And that's where the much-speculated-about escape pods could be stowed, ready to be launched through the shuttlebay doors. And that, or course, effectively doubles the ceiling height of the shuttlebay and at least allows the doors to be sufficiently high for type 6 or 8 shuttles.

I measured a 1200 pixel blowup of the MSD image, and the decks are 3 meters floor to floor with the 120-meter Oberth, at 10 pixels per meter. So the messanine makes sense in light of that. Here it is, in case anybody wants to download and play with it:

http://lcars24.com/Oberth1200.png

 

[Reverend]

Personally, I place the escape pods under the dorsal "inner ring", immediately surrounding the bridge dome.
As for retractable landing pads, I don't seem any point. It's not as if shuttles need to sit on a solid surface in a zero gravity environment. Makes much more sense to simply have a standard retracting docking tunnel in those little notches in the saucer.

 

[Captain X]

I'd like to see someone make a rationalized version of the ship, based either on the 120m figure or something much larger based on other visual references like the window rows and the shuttlebay doors.

 

[Timo]

So why not this one? Or http://www.ussthagard.net/cutaway.html , although it would have to be taken to portray a "showpiece" ship, an example with all the optional extras installed.

As for retractable landing pads, I don't seem any point. It's not as if shuttles need to sit on a solid surface in a zero gravity environment.

The idea would be that in order to dock with a collar, one needs centimeter precision; in order to squeeze through a door, one needs decimeter precision. But in order to bring a shuttle to micrometer-perfect halt against a solid surface of the ship, one only needs meter precision if said solid surface is a broad external landing pad. After that, the shuttle can then be rolled in through a very small and exacting doorway and anchored inside a shuttlebay that leaves only millimeters to spare.

Basically, the landing pad would be a means to match velocities without the need for precision engines or precision tractor beams...

Timo Salloniemi

 

[Captain X]

From what I can see, that one is still too small if you go by the window rows, as there are clearly at least two window rows in that dome on top of the saucer.

 

[Timo]

But interpreting those as window rows would make the ship markedly bigger than Kirk's original one - which doesn't really work dramatically in any of the contexts.

Trek starships have always featured bright lights on the exterior that aren't exactly windows. Kirk's ship already had all sorts of running lights and strange slits on the engine pylons and whatnot. Since we have never seen any indication that there would be portholes in the interiors of an Oberth, least of all her bridge area, there might be none on the exterior, either. Some sort of a sensor array would be a likelier explanation.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Captain X]

Which is why I said I'd like to see a rationalized version of the ship - something that corrects the scaling of the ship and includes missing features like a deflector.

 

[Timo]

Why would rationalizing include rescaling? As shown, 120 meters works just fine - as long as one rationalizes the lights as something else than window rows. Which should be done in any case, since Star Trek bridge domes don't have window rows. (At least not until we get to see the Kelvin up close in the next movie.)

And the above version does include a deflector, complete with a protective radome, which is something one might wish to rationalize into other designs as well.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Captain X]

Why would rationalizing include rescaling? As shown, 120 meters works just fine - as long as one rationalizes the lights as something else than window rows.

Actually, as Bernd pointed out, 120m doesn't really work because of a lack of space to get into the secondary hull, the small size of the shuttlebays, and the way the window rows wouldn't line up in any way that made sense. And no, I can't and won't ignore something as obvious as all of that.

Which should be done in any case, since Star Trek bridge domes don't have window rows. (At least not until we get to see the Kelvin up close in the next movie.)

The E-D has them, not only in the conference lounge, but also in the forward section of the bridge module. There are also windows on deck 1 of the Nova class and the Intrepid class. There's no reason why the bridge would have to be the only thing on deck 1 of the Oberth class either.

And the above version does include a deflector, complete with a protective radome, which is something one might wish to rationalize into other designs as well.

It's not obvious and there's actually some disagreement as to whether the entire secondary hull might not be one big sensor pod. Unfortunately there isn't a lot to go on from on screen, so it's all guessing and trying to make what in all appearence is a fairly large ship much smaller because apparently bigger=better when it comes to hero ships according to the people who decided the Oberth should be a small ship. I would either stick a deflector in there as on the Excelsior class or I'd basically make a thin glowing strip along the front of the platform under the saucer section to act as the deflector.

As a side note, I might even add a few Vulcan design features, as the Oberth class seems to fall within that design ethic and would make sense as far as the Vulcans being scientifically focused.

 

[Timo]

Actually, as Bernd pointed out, 120m doesn't really work because of a lack of space to get into the secondary hull, the small size of the shuttlebays, and the way the window rows wouldn't line up in any way that made sense. And no, I can't and won't ignore something as obvious as all of that.

But shuttlebays are speculation, not a confirmed feature of the class at all, and indeed an unlikely feature considering all those "Oberth stuck, transporters down" incidents. Getting into the secondary hull is a feature of the TNG ships all right, but all it takes is a turbolift that tilts, or a perfectly ordinary corridor that just happens to be at an odd angle. Increasing the size won't make the access any more rational...

The E-D has them, not only in the conference lounge, but also in the forward section of the bridge module.

Note the scale, though: those windows are at different deck levels, as part of a very large multilevel superstructure. If the Oberth were to be "rationalized" that way, she'd outbulk the Excelsior.

To get a narrow windowed corridor around the Oberth bridge, a modest upgrade to, say, 150 m length would suffice. But how is a corridor with two rows of windows rational?

Really, the conspicuous lack of windows on the sets makes me dislike the idea of windows on the model - but the sets pose another problem I consider more pressing. How is it possible to create a horizontal opening from the bridge of USS Tsiolkovsky to the outer starry vacuum?

I mean, this would require some sort of retracting/blowaway panels in any case, as such an opening is not part of the model exterior. But it could be argued that the opening is an emergency feature and does not manifest normally on the exterior, perhaps not even on the interior. The hole still sets some strict requirements, such as having the floor of the bridge at the same level as the outer upper surface of the upper hull, or preferably a bit higher still. Unless the floor of the bridge is set at an angle, that is.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Captain X]

But shuttlebays are speculation, not a confirmed feature of the class at all, and indeed an unlikely feature considering all those "Oberth stuck, transporters down" incidents.

The capability to be the mothership to auxiliary craft is a design feature of the vast majority of Federation starships.

Getting into the secondary hull is a feature of the TNG ships all right, but all it takes is a turbolift that tilts, or a perfectly ordinary corridor that just happens to be at an odd angle.

Except that the car would be delivered to the secondary hull horizontally, and it would be an extra small car.

Increasing the size won't make the access any more rational...

Having more space for a turbolift car to move through and probably some plasma conduits for power if nothing else would definitely be more rational.

Note the scale, though: those windows are at different deck levels, as part of a very large multilevel superstructure.

Not on the Nova or the Intrepid, and even on the Galaxy and Oberth it's more like a half-deck difference, which is why it's still included as being "deck 1".

If the Oberth were to be "rationalized" that way, she'd outbulk the Excelsior.

I'm kind of doubting that. Even if the ship was simply scaled up, the primary hull would have something like 10-12 decks, and that wouldn't include any rationalization, by which I mean tweaking features so they make sense in the context of the design - not just simple scaling.

To get a narrow windowed corridor around the Oberth bridge, a modest upgrade to, say, 150 m length would suffice. But how is a corridor with two rows of windows rational?

It's not, which is why the ship either has to be bigger than 150m, or the windows should be changed to reflect the lack of anything more than maintenance spaces around the bridge, or at least a very small deck 1. That's what I mean by rationalizing the design, much as I've seen people improve on the design of ships like the Cheyenne class so that while the basic lines are kept, it's made to look less like an obvious kitbash of Galaxy class parts.

Really, the conspicuous lack of windows on the sets makes me dislike the idea of windows on the model - but the sets pose another problem I consider more pressing. How is it possible to create a horizontal opening from the bridge of USS Tsiolkovsky to the outer starry vacuum?

Considering examples like that, and other cases where windows have been included that don't match anything on the exterior of the ship, I can understand why most of the generic Federation sets lacked any windows, because there's always going to be someone like me who will say something about the Rec Deck not fitting in the Conny saucer or Voyager not having any long rows of windows, etc.

I mean, this would require some sort of retracting/blowaway panels in any case, as such an opening is not part of the model exterior.

It's kind of stupid anyway to have a hatch right on the bridge as a normal opening. But there have been a lot of things like that which only existed for a plot device or to be a "kewl" visual.

 

[Timo]

Except that the car would be delivered to the secondary hull horizontally, and it would be an extra small car.

Which shouldn't be much of a problem - the car could travel in whichever orientation, and would still be as big as the average lift cab of today.

But the whole silly curving->horizontal pylon structure looks like it was designed to make "classic" turbolifting as difficult as possible. Which is why I say that enlarging the dimensions wouldn't be all that rational: the structure clearly isn't optimized for this job, so it would be more fruitful to think of another job it might be optimized for.

Perhaps the lower pod wasn't accessible originally, except in the sense that mechanics could walk there just like they could walk to the Reliant torpedo pod once in a while. The swappability of the lower section would be a feature of these original ships. In the TNG era, engineers would decide to install extra power, and their new reactor wouldn't fit in the upper hull any more - so they'd place it in the pod, as shown in "Hero Worship", and ditch some of the former functionalities. Things like that happen in reality, too: a chassis is modified to do things it previously could not, and as the result can no longer do things it formerly could.

I'm kind of doubting that. Even if the ship was simply scaled up, the primary hull would have something like 10-12 decks, and that wouldn't include any rationalization, by which I mean tweaking features so they make sense in the context of the design - not just simple scaling.

Good points. But then again, what would that make of the trapezoid doorways? Or the idea that a Klingon BoP can kill this one with a single shot?

It's kind of stupid anyway to have a hatch right on the bridge as a normal opening.

Well, if your top bridge officers are always traipsing on alien planets and vessels, they should enjoy as direct an access as possible. Bridge transporters, bridge airlocks...

I could totally buy a design wherein part of the bridge dome descended to lie flat, level with the upper hull, so that small craft could dock there, like they do with the ST:TMP ship. It's not as if there are docking rings elsewhere in the design, after all. But the inside view of that hatch does look like an emergency feature: one would have to crouch and hop to get through, and it's inconveniently on the back wall behind some chairs. An "emergency hatch" is what they call it, too.

No doubt it was designed without knowledge of the exterior shape of the vessel: the person doing the set might not have known or cared that the Grissom model would be reused. Still, I'd like to find a way to make that thing fit. Even if it calls for assuming that the Tsiolkovsky had her bridge and "main corridor" (whatever that is) located on the underside of the ship, to allow for the witnessed view...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Captain X]

Which shouldn't be much of a problem - the car could travel in whichever orientation, and would still be as big as the average lift cab of today.

It'd be smaller, actually, and that's why it's a problem.

But the whole silly curving->horizontal pylon structure looks like it was designed to make "classic" turbolifting as difficult as possible. Which is why I say that enlarging the dimensions wouldn't be all that rational: the structure clearly isn't optimized for this job, so it would be more fruitful to think of another job it might be optimized for.

It was just poorly designed, so scaling the ship up and/or thickening the pylons would make a lot of sense, actually.

Perhaps the lower pod wasn't accessible originally, except in the sense that mechanics could walk there just like they could walk to the Reliant torpedo pod once in a while. The swappability of the lower section would be a feature of these original ships. In the TNG era, engineers would decide to install extra power, and their new reactor wouldn't fit in the upper hull any more - so they'd place it in the pod, as shown in "Hero Worship", and ditch some of the former functionalities. Things like that happen in reality, too: a chassis is modified to do things it previously could not, and as the result can no longer do things it formerly could.

Except externally there was no difference, and while it would be all fine and good to have an unmanned pod, why would you if you could just tweak it a bit and get a functional secondary hull.

Good points. But then again, what would that make of the trapezoid doorways?

Shuttlebays or cargo bays.

Or the idea that a Klingon BoP can kill this one with a single shot?

A design flaw in the shields, and as the gunner said, "a lucky shot". Though to be brutally honest I thought the BoP in ST3 was shown to be a lot stronger than a ship of its size should have been.

Well, if your top bridge officers are always traipsing on alien planets and vessels, they should enjoy as direct an access as possible. Bridge transporters, bridge airlocks...

Except it makes it harder to keep the bridge secure and easier to bring death to those on the bridge. At the very least there should have been an airlock system there.

I could totally buy a design wherein part of the bridge dome descended to lie flat, level with the upper hull, so that small craft could dock there, like they do with the ST:TMP ship. It's not as if there are docking rings elsewhere in the design, after all.

Or you could add a docking port to the design in a way that doesn't really change the design that much.

But the inside view of that hatch does look like an emergency feature: one would have to crouch and hop to get through, and it's inconveniently on the back wall behind some chairs. An "emergency hatch" is what they call it, too.

But it was still a stupid design feature written solely for a plot device. The only two practical uses of such a hatch would be if the ship crash-landed on a planet without killing everyone and the planet has a breathable atmosphere, or as an access for a rescue ship that had some kind of universal docking collar on it. But it would still be easier to dock at an airlock somewhere else since direct access to the bridge probably wouldn't be necessary on any rescue mission.

No doubt it was designed without knowledge of the exterior shape of the vessel: the person doing the set might not have known or cared that the Grissom model would be reused. Still, I'd like to find a way to make that thing fit. Even if it calls for assuming that the Tsiolkovsky had her bridge and "main corridor" (whatever that is) located on the underside of the ship, to allow for the witnessed view...

All the more reason to make slight redesigns in order to rationalize the design, either as a larger ship than depicted, or to correct the external design features to reflect a smaller size.